Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County
1 Cal. 5th 151
| Cal. | 2016Background
- California Dept. of Water Resources (DWR) sought court orders under the Eminent Domain Law (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1245.010–1245.060) to enter ~150 private Delta parcels for environmental surveys and, on 35 parcels, deeper geological borings to evaluate possible water‑conveyance alignments.
- Trial court held detailed hearings, authorized limited environmental testing (25–66 days over one year; notice, timing, equipment limits) and required deposits ($1,000–$6,000 per parcel), but denied authorization for deep geological drilling.
- Court of Appeal (2–1) affirmed denial of geological testing and reversed authorization for environmental testing, holding (1) precondemnation statutes cannot constitutionally authorize activities that constitute a taking/damaging under Cal. Const. art. I, § 19(a), and (2) both categories here were takings requiring classic condemnation for temporary easements and jury determination of compensation.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether the geological activities are a taking, (2) whether the environmental activities are a taking, and (3) whether the precondemnation statutes satisfy the California takings clause if they do.
- The court assumed (without deciding) both activities could be takings, but held the precondemnation statute is constitutional if reformed to allow a jury determination of compensation in the precondemnation proceeding upon request; it reversed the Court of Appeal in full and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do the precondemnation statutes cover the environmental and geological testing sought? | Landowners: statutes (and Jacobsen) limit authority to innocuous/superficial entries; deep borings exceed scope. | DWR: statute text and legislative history include "borings" and contemplate extensive testing; statutes apply. | Statutes do encompass the environmental and geological testing described. |
| 2. Do the statutes violate Cal. Const. art. I, § 19(a) by permitting takings/damage without classic condemnation? | Landowners/Ct. of Appeal: any activity constituting a taking (including temporary blanket easement or permanent occupation) requires classic condemnation and jury compensation first. | DWR: statutes require court authorization, deposit of probable compensation, and post‑entry remedies; that satisfies the takings clause. | Legislature permissibly provided an expedited precondemnation procedure; classic condemnation is not required so long as statutes provide protections (court order, deposit, recovery). |
| 3. Are statutory remedies (court determination of damages and deposit) an adequate measure of just compensation under state takings clause? | Landowners: statutory damages are inadequate because owner is entitled to jury ascertainment and potentially easement valuation/rental. | DWR: section 1245.060 allows court or civil action; damages for actual harm/substantial interference are constitutionally adequate. | Statutory damages are adequate, but statute must be reformed to permit owner the option of a jury trial on damages in the precondemnation proceeding. |
| 4. Do the proposed geological borings constitute a per se permanent physical occupation (Loretto) requiring classic condemnation? | Landowners: grout left in drill holes and site occupation create permanent physical occupation => per se taking. | DWR: grout is temporary/replaceable, no continuing public possession or interest; statutes provide deposit and recovery; Loretto not controlling. | Unclear that drilling/refilling is a permanent physical occupation; even if it were, statutory protections suffice. Precondemnation procedure may authorize the drilling when reformed to provide a jury option. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobsen v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 319 (Cal. 1923) (early decision holding deep borings for reservoir investigation amounted to a taking under prior law)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (minor but permanent physical occupation is a per se taking)
- Williamson Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (federal takings claim requires available state process for compensation; no pre‑payment requirement)
- Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 648 (Cal. 2007) (deference to legislative design of eminent domain procedures; quick‑take context discussed)
- City of Los Angeles v. Ricards, 10 Cal.3d 385 (Cal. 1973) (temporary loss of easement and appropriate damages analysis)
- U.S. v. Virginia Elec. Co., 365 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1961) (just compensation measured by owner’s loss; market value often appropriate but not exclusive)